Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759370AbYBYGVU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:21:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753660AbYBYGVK (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:21:10 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:55468 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752498AbYBYGVH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:21:07 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=f2KTF5I1UJwUqOaQ43arlrYMVDFAtUIW0nJMYSouFpU8VOMa6lCX2or5NU/leT2Bgmka/tYpI70hWh2WJ9u9ERjoDjzcaz8obprQ/tNEfYWP96R+KwMvopQqikFs3+q2Cxk34YezVakibSbuLNIaC8xq+ERKrJGF0L75zw94KoE= Message-ID: <9810cff90802242221x2f16dc79k634cecf2c1cee41e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:21:07 -0800 From: "Bill Huey (hui)" To: gregory.haskins@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 11/14] optimize the !printk fastpath through the lock acquisition Cc: "Pavel Machek" , "Gregory Haskins" , mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kevin@hilman.org, cminyard@mvista.com, dsingleton@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, npiggin@suse.de, dsaxena@plexity.net, ak@suse.de, gregkh@suse.de, sdietrich@novell.com, pmorreale@novell.com, mkohari@novell.com In-Reply-To: <47C2500E.9080407@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080221152504.4804.8724.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> <20080221152722.4804.77478.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> <20080222191837.GE6060@ucw.cz> <47BF4AC5.7070507@gmail.com> <9810cff90802221643g7d993af4k33f29fb4a4663407@mail.gmail.com> <47C2500E.9080407@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 876 Lines: 20 [repost with all folks CCed] On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Are you saying that the modified logic that I introduced is broken? Or > that the original use of the might_sleep() annotation inside this > function is broken? It's probably safe to use, but it's not what its original purpose was and you should use another function/macro. This is an annotation issue and your use of it is inconsistent with how it's used in voluntary preempt. I mentioned it before in a previous post. Folks will correct me if I'm wrong but you should use another macro or function. bill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/